No Happy Cows. John Robbins

of Animals (PETA) in a lawsuit that challenges the Milk Board's ads as unlawfully deceptive. To my eyes, it is inhumane to inflict widespread suffering on cows and their calves. I consider it inexcusable to poison the state's ground-water basins. And I think it is dishonest to deceive caring consumers about this animal suffering and environmental devastation. Thus I would feel irresponsible if I sat by and did nothing while the Milk Board continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their Happy Cow ad campaign.

      After joining the lawsuit, I was interviewed by a skeptical reporter, who asked some provocative questions about my participation. A portion of our dialogue follows:

      Question: Don't you think the ads are funny?

      Answer: I think they are clever, but as someone who takes animal suffering seriously, I don't find them humorous. There's nothing funny about cruelty, and I don't think that misleading the public becomes legitimate when it is done in an “entertaining” way.

      Question: You are joined in this lawsuit by PETA. Aren't your complaints about the ads something that only animal rights advocates would make?

      Answer: Consumers who want the animal products they buy to be from humanely raised animals can be found in every segment of society. McDonald's has recently increased the size of the cages in which their chickens are kept, and decreased the number of birds in the cages. They have made this change at considerable cost, because they recognize the strength of the market demand from their customer base for more humanely raised poultry. Burger King and Taco Bell have made similar changes. The customer bases for these fast-food franchises are not made up of animal rights advocates. On the contrary, they are composed of mainstream Americans. Consideration for the plight of animals is a central part of the American character. It is an essential part of who we are as a people. Abraham Lincoln was not speaking only for animal rights advocates when he said: “I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or cat aren't the better for it.” I think the Happy Cow ads are an insult to the legitimate humanitarian concerns of millions of people.

      Question: Are you joining this lawsuit because you are a vegetarian?

      Answer: No. Being a vegetarian is a personal choice. It is not a personal choice whether you tell the truth about products you are marketing to the public. In fact, it is the non-vegetarian population that is more the victim of this ad campaign. Many vegetarians do not consume any kind of dairy products, so this kind of false advertising actually affects them less.

      Question: Aren't all ads like this? When I buy a beer, I don't expect to get two women in bikinis standing next to me.

      Answer: It's true that many ads exploit the desires of people for happier and more exciting lives. But to me, the Happy Cow campaign seems uniquely irresponsible. Our society is not experiencing a concerted and serious social movement composed of people from all walks of life demanding that commercial beer products come with women in bikinis. There is, however, exactly that kind of movement demanding that dairy and other animal food products come from humanely treated animals and environmentally sustainable practices.

      Question: The ads imply that California cows are treated better than cows in other states. Is this true?

      Answer: No. The reality is actually the opposite. California's dairy industry is concentrated for the most part in the dry Central Valley, which is now the number one milk-producing area in the United States. Here, the cows are typically kept in dirt feedlots, unlike the green pastoral fields common in Wisconsin, for example, where there is much higher annual rainfall. California dairy cows are kept in larger numbers in smaller areas than anywhere else in the country.

      Question: What are you trying to accomplish with this lawsuit?

      Answer: We are asking the court to take animal suffering seriously, and to put a stop to these deceptive ads. Furthermore, I would like to see the dairy industry make amends and make an effort to rectify some of the damage done by the ads. For example, I would like to see the Milk Board pay fines at a level commensurate with what they've paid for the Happy Cow campaign. And I'd like to see that money used to fund a public service educational campaign to educate people of all ages about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals.

      Question: What is the current status of the lawsuit?

      Answer: Thus far, the Milk Board has prevailed in court. Why? Because the California Milk Advisory Board is the marketing arm of the California Department of Agriculture, which is a government agency. And in California, in a truly Orwellian twist, government agencies are exempt from laws prohibiting false advertising.

      Question: If the courts won't step in and protect us, what can we do?

      Answer: I think it's time for consumers to stop rewarding this behavior with our hard-earned dollars. I think it's time for us to withdraw our support from industries that mislead us and whose practices are cruel to animals. I think it's time for us to understand that, when it comes to factory farms, there are no happy cows.

       PART TWO

      What Are We Putting

      into Our Bodies?

       4

       Health Food or Harm Food?The Truth about Soy

      IN RECENT YEARS, I've received quite a number of requests from people asking for my views on soy products. Many of these inquiries have mentioned a stridently anti-soy article written by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig titled “Tragedy and Hype” that has been widely circulated. This article presents a systematic series of accusations against soy consumption, and has formed the basis for many similar articles. Many people, as a result, are now seriously questioning the safety of soy.

      The litany of dangers of soy products, according to Fallon and Enig, is nearly endless. Tofu, they say, shrinks brains and causes Alzheimer's. Soy products promote rather than prevent cancer. Soy contains “anti-nutrients” and is full of toxins. The pro-soy publicity of the past few years is nothing but “propaganda.” Soy formula, they say, amounts to “birth control pills for babies.”

      “Soy is not hemlock,” they conclude; “Soy is more insidious than hemlock.”

      Fallon and Enig say the soy industry knows soy is poisonous, and “lie(s) to the public to sell more soy.” They say that soy is “the next asbestos.” They predict that there will be huge lawsuits with “thousands and thousands of legal briefs.” They warn that those who will be held legally responsible for deliberately manipulating the public to make money “include merchants, manufacturers, scientists, publicists, bureaucrats, former bond financiers, food writers, vitamin companies, and retail stores.”

      Given the rapidly expanding role that soy in its many forms has come to play in the Western diet, these accusations are extremely serious. If they are true, the widespread trust that many people have come to have in soy is not only misplaced, but disastrous.

      Soy foods have come to play such a significant role in the diets of many health-conscious people, and the allegations that have been made against them are so many and so grave, that I think the topic warrants a careful, detailed, and meticulous look. What follows is my attempt to provide an objective appraisal of both the benefits and the dangers of soy.

       BLESSING OR CURSE?

      Not that long ago, soybeans were considered by most Americans to be “hippie food.” But then medical research began accumulating that affirmed that soy consumption reduced heart disease and cancer risk, that it lengthened life and enhanced its quality, and that it provided an almost ideal protein substitute for animal proteins that almost inevitably come packaged with cholesterol and unhealthy forms of saturated fat. The mainstream culture began taking note. In a 1999 article titled “The Joy of Soy,” Time Magazine announced that consuming a mere 1.5 ounces of soy a day can significantly lower